1

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Prepared by:

WONG CHIH SIONG

PhD Candidate (PB123007)

cswong7@live.utm.my

Supervisor:

PROF. MADYA DR. MAHMUD BIN MOHD JUSAN

Faculty of Built Environment

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

81310 Skudai, Johor

MAY 2013

2

1. Research Topic

Students’ personality profile influences their perception on the design of architecture

design studio as a learning environment.

2. Research Aim

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between personality differences of

architecture students and their perception toward the physical design of architecture design

studio as satisfying their privacy need in architectural studies.

3. Research Objectives

The following research objectives are formulated to achieve the aim of this study:

i. To identify physical environmental factors that influence students study and

learning behaviour in architecture design studio

ii. To determine the collective personalities of architecture students in understanding

their dominant characteristics in architecture design studio setting

iii. To investigate the correlation between students’ personality and their perception

towards the particular physical design of architecture design studio related to

privacy dimensions that influence their study and learning behaviour

4. Assumption

The concept of synomorphy assumes that the environment shall be supportive in fulfilling

users’ need (Wicker, 1984; Gifford, 2002). Thus, a synomorphic relationship arises when

people and its environment reach to a stage of good fit or congruence. In the context of

architecture design studio, synomorphy is the situation when its environment provides an

ideal and comfortable setting for students to carry out their learning and studying activities.

In other words, synomophy is the ability of the architecture design studio in accomplishing

its functions as learning environment by being appropriate for the students.

3

With that idea in mind, this study assumes that synomophy in architecture design studio is

influenced by the way students perceive the physical design of the studio. The following

hypothesis statement is therefore being formulated:

There is a significant relationship between students’ personality and the way they perceive

the design of Architecture Design Studio as satisfying their privacy need in accomplishing

architectural education.

5. Research Questions

This study is dealing with the following research questions:

i. What are the physical environmental factors that affect architecture students’ study

and learning privacy need in the context of architecture design studio?

ii. What are the personal characteristics of architecture students that influence how

architecture design studio is organised and shaped?

iii. Does the different students’ personality have significant effects on their perception

on the design of architecture design studio?

iv. Does the students’ perception on the design of architecture design studio regarding

privacy issues have an impact on their learning and study behaviour?

v. What are the optimal privacy designs attributes of architecture design studio as

accordance to different categories of students personality profile?

6. Research Background

Architectural learning is regarded as a complicated endeavor. Architects ought to be

familiar with multiple areas of study and different types of learning. Mostly, this expertise

is acquired via theory and practice (Vitrivius, 1914). The most fundamental course in

architectural education is design, as students transform the practical and theoretical

knowledge gained, with their creativity in the representation of a design model (Schön,

1994, 1997). Architectural programme is thus has been modeled on design studios that

4

focus on practical education. In fact, design studios are the hub of architectural learning. It

can be considered as the most crucial space in the architectural educational study.

Architecture design studio is a place of learning where architecture student can work

comfortably during the normal class hours. On the other hand, students have given right to

pursue their own design projects out of formal class hours too (Stamps, 1994; Demirbas,

1997). Nevertheless, it could be an ideal space that encourages both of the above ideas at

any one time. This is the environment where students spend most of their time, sometimes

talking to each other, but mainly absorbed in a parallel, private pursuit of the specified

design task (Schön, 1987). Stamp (1994) further claimed that about one third to one half of

educational time is spent in the design studio by the student.

Moos (1986) stated that the most powerful technique to influence human behaviour is

through the arrangement of environments in his review of environmental correlates and

determinants of human behaviour. That is the main point highlighted by Winston Churchill

in his famous quote of “We shape our buildings and then they shape us”. Likewise, Kurt

Lewin (1936) showed the same notion of thinking in his programmatic formula stating that

behavior is a function of the person and environment. This leads to a conclusion that

particular environmental setting will lead to certain intended behaviour (Baker, 1968;

Moos, 1986; Dewey, 1993). A study carried out by Evans & McCoy in 1998 found that

humans respond to a well designed environment. So it is crucial that the designers fully

understand how much of an impact the environment has on its users. Thus, an architecture

design studio is the most powerful when offers students all the necessary conditions though

to be important for their architectural studies. But, the obvious question is: what are the

criteria for a design studio environment to be considered as favorable for students. In order

to answer such question, we need to obtain some reliable information about

man-environment relationship (Rapoport, 1982, 1994; Moos, 1986; Strange & Banning,

2001). In other words, we have to understand the nature of design studio environment and

its impacts on architecture students through systematic and scientific inquiries. Architects

should acquire a more sophisticated understanding of design studio environment in order to

eliminate needlessly stressful spatial characteristics. On top of that, efforts could be placed

5

on positive features that assist in students’ active learning, growth and development.

Students learn design skills in the studio space, therefore the use of the studio for

architecture education is crucial and the design studio can be considered a specialized form

of learning space. In general, greater emphasis, in this century including Malaysia is being

placed on learning approaches that are centered on the student. These learning spaces

must be designed to be flexible in their use, so that different groups can use them

simultaneously. Since valuable learning occurs as a result of student interactions, the

designs of these spaces must include a variety of areas where students can interact, consult

and socialize (Deasy & Lasswell, 1985; Kuh et al, 2005; Chism, 2006). It has been noted

that room temperature, air quality, glare, noise, lighting, seats comfort and possibilities of

arrangement have a great effect on the standards of teaching and learning in design studio

(Obeidat et al, 2012). Some other issues that need to be considered when designing these

learning spaces are functionality, flow between spaces, and the connections of people using

those spaces. Other aspects that need to be considered are the size of the groups using the

space, the involvement of the staff and students who will be using the space, structural

aspects, as well as psychological and physiological aspects (Temple, 2007). During the

design process, it is important to have input from the intended end-users of the design

space (Sanoff, 1993).

Architects are not just design and build the functional aspect of particular physical

environment. The most important contribution of designing and building is evolving

intended meaning to the environmental users using non-verbal communication (Strange &

Banning, 2001). Adler and Towne (1987) defined the non-verbal technique of

communication as any messages conveyed without linguistic means. Meaning is

considered as part of the function by playing the most important communication role

between human and the physical environment (Rapaport, 1982). Tangible environmental

elements are cues that express meaning to the users. Users interpret the meaning based

on their perception through association. That is the reason why same environmental

setting may mean differently to different users. It is the users own decoded meaning that

6

matter and affect their preferences and evaluation on certain environment. We will

understand the built environment better if we realize the important latent aspects of

functions, the meaning users read. In the case of design studio, its spatial characteristics

not only make visible function to students but also convey meaningful meaning to

architecture students. Students will enjoy the time spent in the design studio if we are able

to fine tune the meaning read by students to match their preferences and needs through

proper spatial design. Studies conducted by various researchers such as Maslow and Mintz

(1956), and Sommer (1978) have emerged to support this view. For example, customers

tend to spend more time in bar or restaurant that provide comfortable seats with soft

background music and dim lighting (Sommer, 1978). Mehrabian (1981) even went one

step forward to prove and claim that people tend to put more faith in nonverbal message

instead of written or verbal message if the contradiction of meaning arises in between

verbal and non-verbal communication.

Lewin (1936) stated that students’ behaviour must be analyzed not only in term of learning

environment characteristic but also the characteristic of the students too. As such, student’s

decision to remain or leave design studio could be examined from the failure of the

designated studio’s facilities to offer sufficiently supportive environment to the need of his

unique personal characteristics. In other words, architecture students’ behaviour in design

studio mainly determined by the congruence level of students’ characteristics as well as the

studio’s environment characteristics. Of course, studio environment in this case refers to

both physical and social environment. After reviewing literatures on human characteristics

on learning environment, Strange & Banning (2001) concluded that the aggregate features

of particular environment are well informed by the collective information about individuals

in such environment. The environmental differences or dominant features are therefore

resulting from the collective effects of inhabitants’ psychological and demographic factors.

Psychological factors are concerning about inhabitants’ personality types, interests or style

whereas demographic factors are referring to inhabitants’ gender, age or racial-ethnic

composition issues. The research supporting this notion is well established through the

works of Holland (1966, 1973), Walsh & Holland (1992), Clark and Trow (1966), Astin

7

(1968, 1993), Myers (1980), Kolb (1983), and John and Srivastava (1999).

7. Problem Statement

For a long time, design studio has been acknowledged as the focal point for architectural

education. There is no disagreement on the value of the role played by the design studio as

a key learning element for architecture students. Studio based learning by architecture

students is being threatened however. There is a trend in institutions of a decrease in

physical space as well as a decrease in teaching hours, which does not coincide with the

increase in the number of students (Port, 2003). With institutions becoming ever more

aware of the requirement for constant analysis of the economic and academic effectiveness

of their facilities, studios are coming under significant pressure to prove their worth as a

resource (Duggan, 2004). Essentially, the issue boils down to the resources and amount of

space required to implement the studio teaching methods of face to face tutorials and

"crits”.

The days when students worked in a studio, learned from one another, with tuition on hand

when needed, are slowly becoming a thing of the past (Duggan, 2004). Educators are

concerned about the issues raised regarding the lack of use of design studios by

architecture students. Students are simply not working enough in studios these days.

Perhaps these students are just making a silence protest. Frequently, the studio space

offered by numerous institutions is insufficient, sometimes with regards to the quantity,

however more frequently with regards to the quality. A preliminary study conducted in

Department of Architecture in Kolej Laila Taib at Sibu, Sawarak provides a glimpse on this

issue. Through informal chatting with some architecture students, not surprisingly, they

bemoan nonexistent of storage facilities for personal and work belongings, inadequate

technology provision especially Wifi, uninspiring ambiance and a lack of space ownership

are same of reasons cause low studio space utilization. Thus, the studio has become

nothing more than a place to meet temporarily, where students can brainstorm with their

fellow students and tutors. It is nothing more than just another classroom within campus.

The design studio is obviously losing its meaning in meeting a complicated set of learning

8

requirements, such as group and individual work, tutorials, crits, and even relaxation. One

interesting finding is different student has different view on spatial characteristics of design

studio and place different emphasis on different needs. It prompts an obvious suspicion on

whether a certain environmental characteristics essential for all students. Or perhaps some

designs are appropriate only for specific student types. This is an area worth to look into

and research further.

The learning that occurs within design studio is ideally shaped and supported by its spatial

design. The design of the studio is a key element to successful learning for architecture

students. But the question arises: What distinguishes a design studio that is successful in

attracting and challenging students? So, the problem now is whether designers have

concrete idea on the design characteristics of a supportive design studio. Or they just

design the studio space based on their intuition or personal preferences. For example,

Board of Architects Malaysia (LAM) in its clause 4.14 of the Policy and Criteria for

Accreditation stating that 2.5 sq. m area of dedicated work space is required for each

student in a studio. Is that the optimal space required by student? Is it sufficient or too

much? We could justify that figure with empirical research. That is why Rapoport (2005)

emphasized on the important of knowing and keeping up with the literature. He believed

that design should be the product of up-to-date research. However, the design studio is

unfortunately being minimally studies in general (Lueth, 2008). As a result, the lack of

systematic documentation causes potential bottleneck for designers, educators and students

in better understanding of design characteristics of studio. It is indeed very difficult to

facilitate any positive change in design studio environment without systematic

understanding of interaction process between students and studio environmental setting. To

make the situation even worst is decisions making power about studio facilities tend to be

in the hand of few people who are not direct users. Building a supportive design studio

shall require direct input from those who actually use the space either the students or

educators. So, the best way to understand the design aspect of the studio will be assessing

users about how they perceive and use the environment.

9

8. Research Gap

The design studio for architectural students is a key aspect of the educational process.

Not only is it similar to the environment of an architectural office, it stimulates creativity

and interaction among the students. However, there is lack of empirical research data of the

design studio especially in the perspective of person-environment relationship. Little is

known about this place where students interact and consult with one another; display their

projects for crit sessions as well as exhibitions (Huang, 1998; Lueth, 2008; Obeidat &

Al-Share, 2012). As shown in the Table 1, previous studies related to design studio are

mostly conducted outside of Malaysia context. Available information is only restricted to

the works on Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Parameter conducted in Universiti

Kebangsaan Malaysia (Nasir et al, 2011; Musa et al, 2012; Che-Ani et al, 2012).

Meanwhile, the gap of integrated perspective concerning the design studio environment is

yet to be filled. Person-environment relationship in the context of design studio requires

more exploration especially in term of the impact of student’s personality on their

perception of preferred spatial quality in fulfilling their personal privacy need. Such study

attempts to provide clear pictures of the studio environment impact from the perspective of

the individual students in order to create conditions that minimize undesirable effects.

Table 1: Previous studies on Design Studio

Major Studies of Design Studio Concern and Findings Setting (Context)

Parameter Being Measured / Discussed

Obeidat & Al-Share (2012)

Concern: Users’ perception of design-studio classroom environment in fulfilling their needs and objectives. Finding: Satisfaction of the users is impacted by the physical environment of studio. Lighting is the most important feature.

Design and architecture field in Jordan

- Lighting - Noise - Glare - Air quality - Temperature - Seats comfort - Arrangement - Designated workstations

Hassanain et al. (2012)

Concern: Performance appraisal framework for architectural design studio facilities. Finding: Performance appraisal framework acts as effective post occupancy evaluation method to identify performance problem of design studio facilities and work out remedial measures.

Architecture design studios at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Facilities of architecture design studio

10

Osman & Demirkan (2000)

Concern: Students’ privacy preference in design studio Finding: Privacy preference in between male and female shows no difference in term of solitude, reserve, anonymity, and isolation. The only different is male tends to enjoy intimacy with friend rather than family whereas female preferred the other way around.

Interior design studio at Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey

Privacy dimension: - Personal space - Territoriality - Crowding

Huang (1998) Concern: Open-plan design studio Finding: A conceptual model of the physical and social-psychological environment for open-plan landscape architecture design studio

Design studio for Landscape Architecture at University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Physical Factors: - Enclosure - Floor Area - Layout - Furniture Ambient Factors: - Lighting - Windows - Air Quality - Noise Psychophysical Factors: - Communication - Personalization - Privacy (Territoriality, Personal Space, Crowding, Occupancy) - Appearance - Status

Abdullah et al. (2011).

Concern: Possible design approach in planning and designing architecture learning spaces Finding: Architecture learning is not restricted to design studio as the built environment and the landscape can be regarded as a place where learning occurs.

Malaysia - Studio culture - Learning spaces

Musa et al. (2012a).

Concern: Indoor environmental quality - Lighting performance Finding: The lighting setting is not within the range of Malaysian Code of Practice on Indoor Air Quality. Students are still willing to use the studio as they perceived it as not abnormal.

Year 3 architecture design studio at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia

Lighting

Musa et al. (2012b).

Concern: Indoor environmental quality - Temperature Finding: The temperature setting is not within the range of MS 1525:2007. However, such condition does not stopping students to work in the studio for long hours.

Year 3 architecture design studio at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia

Temperature

11

Che-Ani et al. (2012)

Concern: Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) of architecture design studio Finding: Most of the architecture student agreed that the temperature comfort, humidity, day lighting, glare and brightness are most important for internal studio environment

Year 3 architecture design studio at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Malaysia

- Temperature - Lighting

Nasir et al. (2011)

Concern: Identification of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Parameter in Creating Conducive Learning Environment for Architecture Studio Finding: Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Parameter for architecture studio includes thermal comfort, air quality, disturbances, control, appearance, general atmosphere and lighting.

- - Thermal comfort - Ventilation - Noise - Suspended materials in the air - The chemical content composition

Kurt (2009).

Concern: Traditional design studio versus constructivist studio Finding: Characteristics of traditional studio environments in comparison to constructivist studio.

- - Traditional studio environments - Constructivist studio

Duggan (2004)

Concern: The Changing Nature of the Studio as an Educational Setting Finding: Challenges faced by the users and providers of studio space in tackling unacceptably low space utilization

- - Studio space utilization - Studio Culture

Lueth (2008).

Concern: Student perception of learning experiences in design studios Finding: The students described their learning experiences as inter-relational, perceived the experiences as transitional, and felt that their learning experiences aided in the production of outcomes.

Architecture students from first- through fourth-year at Iowa State University, United States

- Learning experiences

Ochsner (2000)

Concern: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the Design Studio Finding: The nature of the interaction between instructors and students in the studio environment shall be examined under the psychoanalytic perspective

- - Instructors - Students - Studio environment

12

9. Theoretical Framework

This study is based on person-environment relationship in term of transactional psychology

approach. Kopec (2012) defines transactional theory as “a level of inquiry that

concentrates on the patterns of relationships and contends that the human-environment

relationship is mutually supportive”. The idea is that the environment and user is

constantly affecting each other. So, the design setting of the Architecture Design Studio

may influences students learning and studying bahaviour. Students behave in certain ways

is mainly due to the way they perceive the level of affordance in design studio. And their

perception is speculated greatly affected by their unique personality profile among them.

The theoretical framework is thus being developed to discuss the rationale of the

relationship in design studio context. So, the variables involved in this study will be:

i. Dependent variable: Perception of design as satisfying student privacy needs

ii. Independent variable: Spatial characteristics of architecture design studio, student

personality

Figure 1: Variables

Architecture students’ perception of studio design is the main interest in this study. It is a

dependent variable regarding the perceived quality of design acting as determinant in

satisfying students educational learning and studying needs related to privacy dimension.

On the other hand, spatial characteristic of design studio and student personality are two

independent variables that cause the dependent variable, perception of studio design to

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Spatial Characteristics of Design Studio

Students’ Personality

Perception of Design

as Satisfying Student Needs

13

change in value. Dependent variable and independent variable can be referred as respond

variable and predictor variable respectively (Zainudin, 2012).

Firstly, spatial characteristics of design studio as environmental aspect is one of the

independent variables could be categorized into technical and functional performance

requirements. This idea is referring to the performance appraisal framework of

architectural design studio facilities developed by Mohammad A. Hassanain, Mohammed

Alhaji Mohammed and Murat Cetin (2012). Technical performance requirements are

portrayed as the background setting to carry out activities while functional performance

requirement have to do with the facilities that support users’ activities (Preiser et al., 1988).

Mainly the technical performance necessities of architectural design studio space embrace

thermal, visual and acoustical comfort, along with fire safety and indoor air quality. The

main functional requirements of architectural design studio room comprise layout of the

workstation and quality, plus inside finishes, support services and group-gathering space.

All these facilities permit students to function proficiently in carrying out their studio

works. Secondly, the individual difference of students is another independent variable that plays

significant role in this study. Person is one of the two considerations in

person-environmental relationship. Individual differences, situational factors, social

conditions and cultural factors fall under the human being spectrum in the eclectic model

applied to learning space by Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001).

However, the individual difference is the only factor considered in this study due to the

complexity of the research design if involving all other factors. Student personality related

to individual difference is the main focal point in this study. There is various human

behaviour, however order in fact exists in such random variation. It is personality, a

consistent behaviour patterns (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Burger, 2011). Personality can

be explained using six general approaches according to Burger (2011) namely the

psychoanalytic approach, the trait approach, the biological approach, the humanistic

approach, the behavioral/social learning approach, and the cognitive approach. This study

14

employs the trait approach that assumes that student’s differences in behaviors are

relatively stable over time and across situations. Under trait approach, student personality

types are examined using the influential model of Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs

(Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley, 1985), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) built on

Jung’s (1923/1971) theory of psychological type. Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs

describes individual differences in four dichotomous personality dimensions namely

Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I), Sensing (S) or Intuition (N), Thinking (T) or Feeling

(F), Judgment (J) or Perception (P) as shown in Table 2. These various dimension can

combine and produce sixteen different personality types.

Table 2: Four Dichotomies of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

Where do we get our energy? Extraversion (E) Introversion (I)

Prefers to draw energy from the outer worlds of activity, people and things

Prefers to draw energy from the inner world of reflections, feelings and ideas

How do we take in information? Sensing (S) Intuition (N)

Prefers to focus on information gained from the five senses and on practical applications

Prefers to focus on patterns, connections and possible meanings

How do we make decisions? Thinking (T) Feeling (F)

Prefers to base decision on logic and objective analysis of cause and effect

Prefers to base decisions on valuing process, considering what is important to people

How do we organize our world? Judgment (J) Perception (P)

Like a planned, organized approach to life and prefers to have things decided

Likes a flexible, spontaneous approach and prefers to keep options open

Human are basically visual beings (Gifford & Ng, 1982). However, different people will

perceive thing in different way due to their highly subjective nature of human characteristic.

Their behaviour is depending on the manner they interpret the environment setting. Strange

& Banning (2001) stated that, “Whether individuals are attracted to a particular

environment or satisfied and stable within that environment, is a function of how they

perceive, evaluate, and construct the environment. In effect, their perceptions are the

reality of that environment for them.” Dependent variable, architecture students’ perception

15

of studio design in this study is based on the James J. Gibson’s ecological approach to

environmental perception. Gibson’s theory of affordance illustrates the ability of human

in organizing individual environmental features into identical patterns based on perceived

information within an environment (Gibson, 1976, 1979). He believed the arrangement of

environmental substances provides direct and immediate meaning of its functions. Gibson

argued that architects and space users perceive built environment in different manner

(Gibson, 1976). Architects trained to see form and shape but space users see affordance of

the place. In other words, space users perceive what the place able to provide and do for

them. The functional aspect of the space matter the most rather than the appearances of it.

Understanding how students perceive the studio environment is vital to the effective studio

design. The affordance level provided by studio is analyzed by exploring the manner of

students perceive, utilize and shape the studio environment. In this study, the impact on

privacy dimensions, that spatial characteristics of a design studio has, is carefully

examined through students’ perception. And it is examined by using Pedersen’s six states

of privacy. Since the factors of personal space, privacy, territoriality and crowding, referred

to as environmental psychology mechanisms (Gifford, 1987) result in the preference or non

preference of a studio environment, they should be considered as part of this study.

16

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework

Independent Variable

Personality Profile Types: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

1. Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)

2. Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)

3. Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)

4. Judgment (J) or Perception (P)

Dependent Variable

Expected Outcome

Privacy Preferences:

Pedersen’s Six States of Privacy

1. Solitude

2. Reserve

3. Intimacy with family

4. Intimacy with friends

5. Anonymity

6. Isolation

Spatial Characteristics of Design Studio

Technical Functional - Visual Comfort - Thermal Comfort - Acoustical Comfort - Fire safety

- Furniture - Layout - Interior Finishes - Brainstorming space - Support Services

Students’ Personality 1. Where do we get our energy?

2. How do we take in information?

3. How do we make decisions?

4. How do we organize our world?

Perception of Design

as Satisfying Student Needs 1. Perceiving

2. Utilizing

3. Shaping

Users’ Design Preference

(Privacy Dimension)

According to Their Personality

Dimensions of

Environmental Psychology 1. Personal Space

2. Territories

3. Crowding

17

10. Scope and Limitation of the Study

This research study like any other studies has its own limitations. As a matter of fact, all

research studies have a finite scope and limitation (Zainudin 2012). The selected unit of the

analysis in this study is the private college students pursuing 3-year study in Architecture.

The study will be carried out in the School of Architecture in east Malaysia. In other words,

the population of this study is defined as architecture students studying in the private

college pursuing Diploma in Architecture in east Malaysia context. So, this study has the

following specific scope:

i. Students in the private college

ii. School of Architecture only

iii. 3-year Diploma in Architecture programme

iv. East Malaysia context

Due to the limitation of scope especially the selected population, the findings of this study

might not be generalized to other population. As students from other programme of study

might pose different characteristic, the findings might not be that valid. For example, the

students who major in Interior Design, Landscape Architecture or Urban Planning might

find the findings do not reflect the real situation in their studio environment.

Another limitation is this study only measures the perception of the students without

considering the perception from the perspective of educators involving in the teaching

activities in design studio. The findings would be more informative as the comparison of

the two data set groups can be computed. However, the educators’ perception has to be

excluded from this study due to the constraint of time limitation.

Apart from the limitation mentioned above, this study employs the cross-sectional design

that will only measure students’ perception score once throughout their study. As a result,

the findings may not be able to provide the comparison information on the change of

students’ perception against time. As we all know that architecture education requires long

term commitment from around five to six years. Therefore, the study will be more

insightful if perception of the some respondents is being evaluated at different time interval

18

throughout their study. However, longitudinal design will not be employed in this study as

it requires a very long duration of time.

11. Significance of Study

This study is significant in adding a new body of knowledge regarding students’

perceptions on design for Architecture Design Studio in Malaysia context. Therefore, the

findings would provide a clear sense of design direction especially related to privacy,

personal space, territories, and crowding issues for Architecture Design Studio in both

public and private colleges or universities. Designers will need some guideline to create

positive studio environment if students’ behaviour is greatly affected by the design

condition of studio setting.

Designers require the knowledge of the way students perceive and use the design studio

space as the basis for right decisions throughout the design process. It is important, then,

for designers to know, understand and apply the findings in creating valid and responsible

design studio that able to support the exact functions for architectural studies. If this study

proves that students’ personality have significant effects on their perception on the design

of Architecture Design Studio, then the understanding of this linkage in between

personality and studio design will help designers in making conscious design decisions that

are more meaningful to users. In other words, designers are able to propose a well defined

design studio for the users as a science based through well researched data and findings.

Well designed design-studio will elevate the function of its environment in supporting

various learning and teaching activities within the space for both the students and

educators. This study is therefore play a significant role in contributing design knowledge

and blue print both for improving existing design studio condition as well as for designing

a new one.

19

12. Research Method

This study aims to investigate the correlation between architecture student personality and

their perception toward the physical design of studio environment in fulfilling their privacy

need in architectural educational studies. It will explore the impact of studio’s spatial

characteristics onto different students through the lenses of student personality profile

types. Student bahaviour will be examined under environmental psychology perspective

related to the person-environment congruence, privacy, personal space, territories, and

crowding. Student perception of studio design is thus revealing those design features that

satisfy their privacy needs to perform their design works proficiently.

This study will utilize the mixed methods sequential explanatory design for the purpose of

data collection. The mixed methods sequential explanatory approach mainly consists of

two particular stages: quantitative followed by the qualitative phase (Tashakkori & Teddlie,

1998; Creswell, 2003, 2005).

Figure 3: The Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Design

This design collects and analyzes the quantitative data at the very first stage. Quantitative

data in this stage is collected through questionnaires surveys. Data regarding students’

personality profile types can be acquired by Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

Students’ privacy preference will employ Pedersen’s Six States of Privacy questionnaires.

Both questionnaires will be analyzed using SPSS software for inferential statistic analysis.

First Phase: Quantitative Data

1. Surveys (Questionnaires)

Second Phase: Qualitative Data

1. Focus Group Interviews

Results

Conclusion based on

mixing both qualitative and

quantitative data

The mixed-methods sequential explanatory design consists of two distinct phases:

Quantitative followed by qualitative.

20

The qualitative or text data will then be collected and analyzed during the second phase of

the process. The proposed data collection technique for the qualitative phase is

semi-structured focus group interviews. This interview aims to find out students perception

towards spatial characteristics of architecture design studio. It will be analyzed using

NVivo for content analysis. The second phase is built on the first phase and is connected

during the intermediate level of the study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). It will help to

elaborate and explain the results that are obtained during the initial phase of the design.

The reason for this type of approach is that the quantitative data and the subsequent

analysis will provide an overall understanding of the problem of the study. Both the

qualitative data and the analysis of the researcher will refine the statistical results through

the exploration of the views of the participants with depth (Rossman & Wilson, 1985;

Creswell, 2003).

21

Figure 4: Flowchart of Research Design

Quantitative: Questionnaires Survey

Design Attributes Typology (Privacy Dimension) of Architecture Design Studio

Literature Review

Architecture Design Studio

– Spatial Characteristics

Individual Differences

– Personality Types

Environmental Psychology – Person-Environment Congruence,

Privacy, Personal Space, Territories, Crowding

Perception of Design as Satisfying

User’s Privacy Needs

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Qualitative: Focus Group Interview

Students’ Personality Type

– Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

Students’ Privacy Preference

– Pedersen’s Six States of Privacy

Preferences and Perception

towards Spatial Characteristics of Architecture Design Studio

Inferential Statistical Analysis (SPSS)

Correlation between Students’ Personality and Their Perception on Spatial Characteristics of Design Studio as Satisfying Their Privacy Needs in Learning and Studying

Finding and Discussion

Data Analysis

Content analysis (NVivo)

Quantitative Followed by Qualitative

22

13. Anticipated Findings

This study will reveal the following findings:

i. The physical environmental factors of architecture design studio that play a significant

role in influencing architecture students’ study and learning activities.

ii. The dominant characteristics of architecture students based on Myers-Briggs

personality types.

iii. Architecture students’ perception on the design affordance of Architecture Design

Studio in supporting their learning and study activities. Such perception shall disclose

design preferences related to Pedersen’s six states of privacy as well other issues like

personal space, territories, and crowding.

From the above mentioned findings, the relationship between students’ personality and

their perception of the design of architecture design studio will be established. Students’

perception will provide a clear picture about the design attributes preference based on their

different category of personality. Design attributes in this case are mainly related to four

main areas of concern namely privacy, personal space, territories, and crowding.

Subsequently, the typology of design attributes could be formulated as accordance to four

dichotomous of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). This typology will be a useful

design model for designer in making critical design decision for architecture design. On the

other hand, such typology could be used by researcher for reference and further studies.

This study seeks to provide necessary information to understand the architecture design

studio from a more holistic perspective. The understanding on the interaction between

design studio environment and students through the lenses of different personality profile

will be a stepping stone in shaping studio environment that is congruent with intended

behaviour. That is the ideal design studio setting or known as homeostasis in the domain of

environmental psychology.

23

14. Research Schedule

Table 3: Research Schedule

No. Stages of Study Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Sem 1 Sem 2 Sem 1 Sem 2 Sem 1 Sem 2 Sem 1 Sem 2

1 Proposal

2 Literature review

3 Problem statement, Aim,

Objective formulation

4 Methodology

5 Pilot study

6 Data collection

7 Data input and analysis

8 Findings

9 Writing

10 Submission and Viva

11 Publication * ** ** ***

* Journal Paper (Scopus)

** Conference Paper

*** ISI Paper

24

15. References Abdullah, N. A. G., Beh, S. C., Tahir, M. M., Ani, A. I. Che, & Tawil, N. M. (2011). Architecture design

studio culture and learning spaces: a holistic approach to the design and planning of learning facilities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 27-32.

Adler, R., & Towne, N. (1987). Looking out-looking in. Austin, TX:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Altman, I. (1970). Territorial behavior in humans: An analysis of the concept. In L. Pastalan & D. Carson

(Eds.), Spatial behavior of older people (pp. 1-24). Michigan: The University of Michigan-Wayne State University.

Astin, A. W. (1968). The college environment. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Astin, A. W. (1993). An empirical typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 34,

36-46. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human

behavior. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Incorporated. Burger, Jerry M. (2011). Personality. Australia; Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Che-Ani, A. I., Tawil, N. M., Musa, A. R., Yahaya, H., & Tahir, M. M. (2012). The architecture studio of

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM): Has the indoor environmental quality standard been achieved? Asian Social Science, 8(16), 174-183.

Chism, N. (2006). Challenging Traditional Assumptions and Rethinking Learning Spaces. In D. Oblinger

(ed.), Learning spaces, Washington D.C.: EDUCAUSE. Clark, B., & Trow, M. (1966). The organizational context. In T. Newcomb & E. Wilson (Eds.), College peer

groups: Problems and prospects for research (pp. 17-70). Chicago: Aldine. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, And Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, And Evaluating Quantitative And

Qualitative Approaches To Research. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill/Pearson Education. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing And Conducting Mixed Methods Research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deasy, C. M. & Lasswell, T. E. (1985). Designing Places for People: A Handbook on Human Behaviour for

25

Architects, Designers and Facility Managers. New York: Broadway. Dewey, J. (1993). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process.

New York: D. C. Heath. Demirbas, O. O. (1997). Design studio as a life space in architectural education: Privacy requirements.

Master Thesis. Ankara: Bilkent. Duggan, Fiona. (2004). The changing nature of the studio as an educational setting: CEBE. Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When building don’t work: the role of architecture in human health.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 85-94. Gibson, J. J. (1976). The theory of affordances and the design of the environment. Paper presented at the

annual meetings of the American Society for Aesthetics, Toronto. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gifford, R., & Ng, C. F. (1982). The relative contribution of visual and auditory cues to environmental

perception. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 275-284. Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. Allyn and Dacon: Massachusetts. Gifford, R. (2002). Enviromental psychology: Practice and principles (3rd ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books. Hall, E. T. (1969). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY Anchor Books. Hassanain, Mohammad A., Mohammed, Mohammed Alhaji, & Cetin, Murat. (2012). A multi-phase

systematic framework for performance appraisal of architectural design studio facilities. Facilities, 30(7/8), 324-342.

Holland, J. L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice: A theory of personality types and model

environments. Waltham, MA:Blaisdell. Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Huang, Robin Chi-Feng. (1998). An exploration of an open-plan design studio: A conceptual model of the

physical and social-psychological environment. Master Thesis. University of Guelph (Canada), Canada.

John, O.vP., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical

perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (2nd ed., pp.1002-138). New York: Guilford.

Kolb, D. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood

26

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kopec, D. A. K. (2012). Environmental psychology for design (2nd ed.). Fairchild Books. Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. & Whitt, E. (2005). Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that

Matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kurt, Sevinç. (2009). An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the

constructivist studio in the architectural design education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 401-408.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Lueth, Patience Lamunu Opiyo. (2008). The architectural design studio as a learning environment: A

qualitative exploration of architecture design student learning experiences in design studios from first- through fourth-year. (Ph.D. Thesis), Iowa State University, United States .

Maslow, A. H., & Minz, N. (1956). Effects of those aesthetic surroundings: Initial effects of those aesthetic

surroundings upon perceiving “energy” and “well-being” in faces. Journal of Psychology, 41, 247-254.

Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Moos, R. H. (1986). The human context: Environmental determinants of behavior. Malabar, FL:Krieger. Musa, A. R., Abdullah, N. A. G., Che-Ani, A. I., Tawil, N. M., & Tahir, M. M. (2012a). Indoor

Environmental Quality for UKM Architecture Studio: An Analysis on Lighting Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 318-324.

Musa, A. R., Abdullah, N. A. G., Che-Ani, A. I., Tawil, N. M., & Tahir, M. M. (2012b). Temperature

Analysis for Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) of UKM Architecture Studio. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 575-581.

Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologist Press. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Nasir, A. R. M., Musa, A. R., Che-Ani, A. I., Utaberta, N., Abdullah, N. A. G., & Tawil, N. M. (2011).

Identification of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Parameter in Creating Conducive Learning Environment for Architecture Studio. Procedia Engineering, 20, 354-362.

Obeidat, Asem, & Al-Share, Raed. (2012). Quality Learning Environments: Design-Studio Classroom. Asian

Culture and History, 4(2), 165-174.

27

Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl. (2000). Behind the Mask: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the Design Studio. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 53(4), 194-206.

Osman Demirbas, O., & Demirkan, Halime. (2000). Privacy Dimensions: A Case Study In The Interior

Architecture Design Studio. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 53-64. Port, J. (2003) Physical Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning. Presentation given at ICT Physical

Learning Spaces workshop, March 2003 Preiser, W.F.E., Rabinowitz, H.Z. and White, E.T. (1988), Post-occupancy Evaluation, Van Nostrand

Reinhold, New York, NY. Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach:

University of ARIZONA Press. Rapoport, A. (1994). On 'The Invisible in Architecture'. In Bouman, O., & Van Toorn, R. (Eds.), The Invisible

in Architecture: Academy Editions, Limited. Rapoport, A. (2005). Culture, Architecture, and Design: Locke Science Publishing Company. Rossman, G. B., and B. L. Wilson. (1985). Number And Words: Combining Quantitative And Qualitative

Methods In A Single Large-Scale Evaluation Study. Evaluation Review 9 (5): 627-43. Sanoff, H. (1993). Designing a responsive school environment. Children's Environment, 10, 140-153. Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of

Architectural Education, 38, 2-9. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Sommer, R. (1978). Personal Space: The Behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall. Stamps, A. E. (1994). Jungian epistemological balance: A framework for conceptualizing architectural

education. Journal of Architectural Education, 48, 105-112. Strange, C. C. and J. H. Banning (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that

work, Jossey-Bass. Tashakkori, A., and C. Teddlie. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative And Quantitative

Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Temple, P. (2007). Learning Spaces for the 21st century: A Review of Literature. Centre for Higher Education

Studies. London: University of London.

28

Walsh, Bruce W., & Holland, John L. (1992). A theory of personality types and work environments. In W. B.

Walsh, K. H. Craik & R. H. Price (Eds.), Person–environment psychology: Models and perspectives (pp. 35-69). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Wicker, A. W. (1984). An introduction to ecological psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zainudin Awang (2012). Research methodology and data analysis (2nd ed.) Malaysia: UiTM Press.